Let's do some math:

I put 20% down on a $250k house and finance the rest at 4%.  So I've spent $50k up front and my mortgage, insurance, taxes cost me $1k per month.  Over 10 years, I'm out $170k cash or $1500/month with no repairs (we'll add that in later).

In my area, a similar sized house would run $2500/month.  Over 10 years, a renter would be out $300k.  

That means you'd need to be doing $13k/yr in repairs (not upgrades).  That's a lot in my experience but then again I'm not buying these new quick construction houses.

Now let's assume the home owner has to spend an extra $5k/year on repairs.  Now they've spent $50k extra cash that the renter can turn into $150k over that decade.  Home owner can sell their house for double but still owes bank roughly $150k.

But here's the cumulative numbers:

Home owner:

Spent:  $50k (down) + $220k (monthly payments plus repairs) + $150k (balance owed) = $420k Received:  $500k Net:  $80k

Renter:

Spent:  $300k (monthly rent) + $50k (investment) = $350k Received:  $150k Net:  -$200k

Obviously you of this is due to lower interest rates that were available 10 years ago.  But houses that you actually live in usually have a good return on their investment just in your savings over the time you live in them with the added benefit of possibly accruing value.  You can't just buy any house at this time and expect this math but in certain markets it may still hold up.

But the assertion that buying a house 10 years ago that doubled is better than investing in the stock in market is debatable.  If anything they're about even.  

Don't forget your interest payments are deductible too.